Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1766 (RAJ)

Leela Ben v. Manju Ben

2017-08-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2.8.2000, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the application for compensation on coming to the conclusion that it was not proved that respondent No.2 was driving the tractor from which, the accident occurred. 2. The application for compensation was filed by injured-Smt. Leela Ben with the averments that on 11.8.1992, when the jeep in which she was sitting, was parked on side of the road on account of the fact that she was feeling uneasy, the offending vehicle-tractor being driven by Nana, owned by Shankar Lal, came and struck the said jeep resulting in grievous injuries to her. Based on the said averments, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,10,000/- was claimed. 3. The application was contested by driver-Nana by filing reply, inter alia, claiming that he was not driving the tractor in question and that he has been wrongly involved. The Insurance Company also filed its reply and disputed its liability with the submissions that the tractor in question was not insured with it on the date of accident. 4. No reply was filed by Shanker Lal - owner of the vehicle. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimant, claimant herself was examined alongwith her husband - Pratap Singh. On behalf of the respondent-Nana, he himself and one Vipul was examined. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the accident occurred on 11.8.1992 from the tractor being driven by Nana resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant and, consequently, dismissed the application for compensation. 7. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed grave error in dismissing the application for compensation, inasmuch as, from the material available on record, it was well proved that the accident had occurred from the tractor in question and the same was being driven by Nana. 8. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in relying on the statement of Nana, wherein he claimed that he was on the date of accident, he was working at Ahmedabad and, therefore, judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. 8. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed error in relying on the statement of Nana, wherein he claimed that he was on the date of accident, he was working at Ahmedabad and, therefore, judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 10. It was the specific case of the claimant that the tractor was being driven by Nana, which was involved in the accident on 11.8.1992. FIR in this regard was lodged after 13 days of the accident on 24.8.1992. 11. A bare look at the FIR/Ex.1 indicates that the fact that tractor was being driven by Nana, has not been indicated in the said FIR. Though challan filed by the police against Nana, has not been exhibited, the same was shown by counsel for the appellant, wherein the police has indicated that as it was indicated by owner of the tractor-Shanker Lal that the tractor was in possession of Nana and Nana was not in possession of a valid driving licence, challan was being filed against him. 12. In the statement claimant - Leela, who was examined as AW/1 in her cross-examination indicated that she cannot tell as to whether the respondent No. 2, who was present in the Tribunal, was driving the vehicle or not and that she has seen him for the first time before the Tribunal. 13. AW/2 - Pratap Singh, in his examination-in-chief clearly indicated that the tractor tried to flee from the site, was stopped after half a kilometer and thereafter, the requisite police report was made and that Nana was driving the tractor. In the cross-examination, he specifically indicated that he knew Nana from before the accident and claimed that his name was indicated in the FIR, however, he did not know if the same was not indicated. Besides the above oral statements, the fact regarding Nana driving the offending vehicle, is not proved from any other material available on record. 14. In the cross-examination, he specifically indicated that he knew Nana from before the accident and claimed that his name was indicated in the FIR, however, he did not know if the same was not indicated. Besides the above oral statements, the fact regarding Nana driving the offending vehicle, is not proved from any other material available on record. 14. Once the case of the husband of the claimant was that the tractor was apprehended from within half a kilometer from the site of the accident, no reason or explanation has been given out as to why the FIR was lodged after 13 days and once the husband of the claimant was knowing Nana from before the accident, why his name was not indicated in the FIR. 15. The reason indicated by the police in the challan only pertains to the fact that the owner of the vehicle had indicated that he had handed over the vehicle to Nana, nowhere in the said reply, it was indicated that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Nana. 16. The mere fact that the challan was filed again Nana on the reasons as indicated in the challan itself, the same by itself cannot be a proof that the vehicle in question was being driven by Nana. 17. In view thereof, as there is no evidence available on record to indicate that the offending vehicle was being driven by Nana, further allegations regarding the rash and negligent driving and the claim made by the claimant in this regard were rightly not examined by the Tribunal. 18. There is no force in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.